Moore v. Rhoades Doc.

5
case 3:07-cv-00554-JTM-CAN document 5 filed 11/20/2007 page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ROOSEVELT MOORE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) NO. 3:07 CV 554
vs. )
)
MICHAEL RHOADES, )
)
Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Roosevelt Moore, a pro se prisoner, submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a

prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) provides for

the dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted. Courts apply the same standard under §

1915A as when addressing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston,

463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006).

In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, . . .

the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a
federal right [and] . . . he must allege that the person who has
deprived him of the right acted under color of state law. These
elements may be put forth in a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In

Dockets.Justia.com
 case 3:07-cv-00554-JTM-CAN document 5 filed 11/20/2007 page 2 of 4

reviewing the complaint on a motion to dismiss, no more is required

from plaintiff’s allegations of intent than what would satisfy Rule 8’s
notice pleading minimum and Rule 9(b)’s requirement that motive
and intent be pleaded generally.

Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations, quotation marks

and ellipsis omitted).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only
“‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. , , 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007).

Erickson v. Pardus, 550 U.S. ___, ___; 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (parallel citations

omitted).

While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss

does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to
provide the “grounds” of his “entitlement to relief” requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the
assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if
doubtful in fact).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ___, ___; 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)

(quotation marks, ellipsis, citations and footnote omitted).

While, for most types of cases, the Federal Rules eliminated the
cumbersome requirement that a claimant set out in detail the facts
upon which he bases his claim, Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a
“showing,” rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.
Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see

2
 case 3:07-cv-00554-JTM-CAN document 5 filed 11/20/2007 page 3 of 4

how a claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only

“fair notice” of the nature of the claim, but also “grounds” on which
the claim rests.

Id. at n.3(quotation marks and citation omitted). Nevertheless,

A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se

complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Cf. Fed. Rule
Civ. Proc. 8(f) (“All pleadings shall be so construed as to do
substantial justice”).

Erickson v. Pardus, 550 U.S.___, ___; 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quotation marks

and citations omitted). However, “on a motion to dismiss, courts are not bound

to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Bell Atl. Corp.

v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965, citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)

(quotation marks omitted).

Moore alleges that Michael Rhoades is the commissary officer at the St.

Joseph County Jail. Moore alleges that Rhoades has mismanaged his inmate trust

fund account. Though the complaint is confusing, it seems that Moore is alleging

that Rhoades stole his money or his commissary order, or both.

Though the Fourteenth Amendment provides that state officials shall not

“deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, a

state tort claims act that provides a method by which a person can seek

reimbursement for the negligent loss or intentional deprivation of property meets

3
 case 3:07-cv-00554-JTM-CAN document 5 filed 11/20/2007 page 4 of 4

the requirements of the due process clause by providing due process of law.

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“For intentional, as for negligent

deprivations of property by state employees, the state’s action is not complete

until and unless it provides or refuses to provide a suitable post deprivation

remedy.”) Indiana’s tort claims act (INDIANA CODE § 34-13-3-1 et seq.) and other

laws provide for state judicial review of property losses caused by government

employees, and provide an adequate post-deprivation remedy to redress state

officials’ accidental or intentional deprivation of a person’s property. See Wynn v.

Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Wynn has an adequate post-

deprivation remedy in the Indiana Tort Claims Act, and no more process was

due.”) Therefore, though Moore may have a state tort claim, he does not state a

federal claim for which relief can be granted.

For the forgoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

SO ORDERED.

Enter: November 20, 2007

s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT